Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

New Clause 19

Power to change date of local elections to date of European Parliamentary general election
‘(1) In section 37 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (ordinary days of local elections in England and Wales), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) is subject to any order under—
(a) section 37A (local government areas in England), or
(b) section 37B (local government areas in Wales).”
(2) After that section insert—
“37A Power to change date of local elections to date of European Parliamentary general election: England
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that in a year in which a European Parliamentary general election is to be held—
(a) the ordinary day of election of councillors for counties in England, districts and London boroughs,
(b) the ordinary day of election of councillors for parishes, and
(c) as respects Authority elections, the day on which the poll is to be held at an ordinary election,
shall be changed so as to be the same as the date of the poll at the European Parliamentary general election.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may make provision under all of paragraphs (a) to (c) or under one or more of those paragraphs.
(3) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised, on each occasion, in relation to a single year.
(4) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission, and
(b) such other persons or bodies as he considers appropriate.
(5) An order under subsection (1) may make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision or savings.
(6) Where the Welsh Ministers make an order under section 37B, the Secretary of State may by order make such consequential provision in relation to elections in England as he thinks fit.
(7) The powers under subsections (5) and (6) include power to make—
(a) different provision for different purposes;
(b) provision disapplying or modifying the application of an enactment or an instrument made under an enactment.
(8) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
37B Power to change date of local elections to date of European Parliamentary general election: Wales
(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order provide that, in a year in which a European Parliamentary general election is to be held, the ordinary day of election of councillors for—
(a) counties in Wales and county boroughs, and
(b) communities,
shall be changed so as to be the same as the date of the poll at the European Parliamentary general election.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may make provision under paragraphs (a) and (b) or under one of those paragraphs.
(3) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised, on each occasion, in relation to a single year.
(4) Before making an order under this section, the Welsh Ministers must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission, and
(b) such other persons or bodies as they consider appropriate.
(5) An order under subsection (1) may make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision or savings.
(6) Where the Secretary of State makes an order under section 37A, the Welsh Ministers may by order make such consequential provision in relation to elections in Wales as they think fit.
(7) The powers under subsections (5) and (6) include power to make—
(a) different provision for different purposes;
(b) provision disapplying or modifying the application of an enactment or an instrument made under an enactment.
(8) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
(3) In section 3 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (time of ordinary elections), in subsection (3), after “section 37(2)” insert “or 37A”.’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 243.

Angela Smith: When we adjourned earlier, I was waffling about a date. [Hon. Members: “No, no!”] I have lots of help from my colleagues. I was making a point about occasions when the date of an election should be changed. It should be changed only in exceptional circumstances, to be helpful and supportive to the electorate. That would be the main reason.
The new clause will ensure that any such proposal would always come before the House. It would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and would be voted on by the House. I can confirm that we have spoken to the Local Government Association, which is content with the new clause.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked whether it would be a matter of arranging for the elections to be on the day of local council elections or on the day of European Parliament elections. The proposal in the new clause is to align the election dates. European Parliament elections always take place over a four-day period, from the Thursday to the Sunday, and they have to take place in June. The specific dates are set by the unanimous decision of member states in the European Council, so obviously the British Government would play a role in deciding on the date. Alignment of the dates is important.
There are two key points. The date will be set by agreement of the House of Commons—by a vote in the House—and the proposal is intended to help the electorate as a whole. Nobody would ever do this lightly. It is an important step. The new clause gives the option to the House to vote, if required, on the alignment of election dates.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, and thank her for the time that she spent on it. It is tempting for the people of Biggleswade to feel that perhaps those in Barcelona, Bavaria and Budapest should bend to their will. However, in the spirit of international co-operation, and on the basis that this may not happen on each and every occasion, we can appreciate the reasons for the new clause. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the thinking behind it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

Health and social care: joint strategic needs assessments
‘(1) An assessment of relevant needs must be prepared in relation to the area of each responsible local authority.
(2) A further assessment of relevant needs in relation to the area of a responsible local authority—
(a) must be prepared if the Secretary of State so directs; and
(b) may be prepared at any time.
(3) It is for—
(a) the responsible local authority, and
(b) each of its partner PCTs,
to prepare any assessment of relevant needs under this section in relation to the area of the responsible local authority.
(4) The responsible local authority must publish each assessment of relevant needs prepared under this section in relation to its area.
(5) For the purposes of this section, there is a relevant need in relation to so much of the area of a responsible local authority as falls within the area for which a partner PCT acts if there appears to the responsible local authority and the partner PCT to be a need to which subsection (6) applies.
(6) This subsection applies to a need—
(a) which—
(i) is capable of being met to a significant extent by the exercise by the responsible local authority of any of its functions; and
(ii) could also be met, or could otherwise be affected, to a significant extent by the exercise by the partner PCT of any of its functions; or
(b) which—
(i) is capable of being met to a significant extent by the exercise by the partner PCT of any of its functions; and
(ii) could also be met, or could otherwise be affected, to a significant extent by the exercise by the responsible local authority of any of its functions.
(7) In preparing an assessment under this section, the responsible local authority and each partner PCT must—
(a) co-operate with one another;
(b) have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State; and
(c) if the responsible local authority is a county council, consult each relevant district council.
(8) In this section—
“partner PCT”, in relation to a responsible local authority, means any Primary Care Trust which is a partner authority of the responsible local authority;
“relevant district council” means—
(a) in relation to a responsible local authority, any district council which is a partner authority of it; and
(b) in relation to a partner PCT of a responsible local authority, any district council which is a partner authority of the responsible local authority and whose district falls wholly or partly within the area for which the partner PCT acts.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 245.

Phil Woolas: New clause 20 and Government amendment No. 245 relate to the desirable objective of bringing local authority services and health services closer together. It is proposed to establish a joint needs assessment to ensure that social care services and health services jointly engage in the assessment of local health needs. The argument behind the proposal is that we must do that without imposing extra or excessive bureaucracy in the system.
The types of needs assessment that already take place in some areas consider medium and long-term health needs. One area may have a particular difficulty with heart disease, lung disease or some such, and other areas may have different needs. The new clause allows for local discretion, but, in so far as it is not devolutionary, it compels health authorities and local authorities to do the needs assessment together. It will strengthen earlier clauses on local area agreements by requiring the responsible local authority and the primary care trust, being the two lead bodies, to produce such a needs assessment.
To put it on the record, a “need” means a significant overlap in the impact or potential impact of the exercise of functions of the primary care trust and the responsible local authority. Such an area might include social care provision for older people, which will be substantially affected by the delivery of both preventive and acute health care primarily by PCTs.

Michael Fabricant: Would not that always occur? Is there not always a problem when, for example, a cottage hospital is unable to discharge an elderly person because there is no available place for them in a nursing or care home? I welcome what the Minister is saying, but he uses the word “if”. I would say that it is virtually probable in every district that that very problem will occur, particularly with an elderly population.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We are talking about the assessment of needs. It is a future assessment, and in that sense, it is not directly about the delivery of services. We are trying to address the fact that in some parts of the country, the PCT undertakes a needs assessment as part of its duties while a local authority addresses its social care priorities. The new clause is about joining up, simplifying, getting rid of bureaucracy and all the things behind the thrust of the Bill.
Hon. Members might recall mention during debate in Committee of there being too many targets. It is quite possible to have one target for a local authority and another, sometimes contradictory, target for health care. The deputy group leader of the Local Government Association’s Conservative group, Councillor Milton from Westminster, often cites the case of Kent, which discovered apparently contradictory targets on teenage pregnancy for the local authority and PCT. That is not desirable. Members know of examples in their constituencies; indeed, we get applause during after-dinner speeches for pointing out contradictions in the bureaucracy. The new clause will address that problem. The hon. Member for Lichfield has a fair point, but the measure deals with needs assessment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned districts. I believe that he represents an area covered by a district, one that we have heard about during this debate—Lichfield. We should not forget south-east Staffordshire and Staffordshire as well. The new clause will address that issue by requiring that in two-tier local authority areas, the county council must consult its district councils on the joint needs assessment.
Supporting statutory guidance on the clauses and part 5 of the Bill will make it clear that the local authority should take into account the joint strategic needs assessment’s findings in setting targets in the local area agreement and in preparing the sustainable communities strategy, a point that I also direct to members of the Committee considering the Sustainable Communities Bill. I put it on the record because it will be useful to me in that Committee on Wednesday. The new clause should be seen as part of the broader provisions in part 5 to strengthen partnership. That in turn, we hope and intend, will help to deliver more responsive care.
Government amendment No. 245 will amend the Bill to ensure that new clause 20 comes into force by means of a commencement order rather than automatically two months after Royal Assent. That is a practical step to ensure that PCTs and local authorities have been provided with the necessary guidance to assist them in meeting the duty.

Tom Brake: Given that the new clause refers to the responsible local authority, might there be circumstances in which a number of local authorities need to get together to do a health and social care assessment? Will the new clause provide for that?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It will. It puts the responsibility on the responsible local authority, which means the local authority responsible for social services. In that case, the local authority with more than one PCT would be covered. The responsibility is on the local authority as well as the PCT.
We are not so much banging heads together as saying, “Make arrangements so that the needs assessment for your area is covered.” The needs assessment itself would be for the local authority area and not necessarily the PCT area, which may be different in those instances where there is no coterminosity, which as the hon. Gentleman knows, are fewer now than they used to be due to the joined-up nature of this Government. I hope that, rather like the provision on joint waste authorities, that is seen as sensible.
We backed away—just to share this information with the Committee—from the requirement to put this assessment in the community strategy. That would be unpicking strategies that had already been decided. I expect that they will be part of that joint strategy. However, we do not want to make it a tick-box exercise, to use the management jargon; we want to make it real. On that basis, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Bob Neill: I have one brief point to make. I very much welcome the thrust of this new clause together with the other parts that strengthen consultation. I hope that this will enable us—I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm it—to look not only at needs of the type that he referred to in his own comments but, for example, at the increasing need for capacity in GP surgeries and to make sure that there is clear involvement of the local authority.
If that happens, I hope that we can avoid the thoroughly unsatisfactory situation which arose, only this week, in my constituency. Due to a lack of capacity, a GP surgery suddenly got the PCT to issue a direction to change its catchment area. About 1,200 people, some of whom are quite elderly and have been with that surgery for 50 years, are arbitrarily told that they have to find another doctor. This is the excellent Bromley Common practice. The PCT arbitrarily took that decision because of a capacity issue. Neither the local council nor the local Members of Parliament knew anything about it until constituents and the local newspapers got on to them. This measure is welcome if, together with the other provisions that we have already discussed, it goes some way to preventing that thoroughly unsatisfactory situation.
It is important that the ethos of early consultation and involvement of elected representatives and patients is built into the system right the way through. I expressed concerns about the abolition of the patients forums and how effective LINKs would be in this regard. This is a classic example. This surgery’s problem arose due to the Mayor of London, about two years ago, directing refusal of an application to build a surgery because the land was green belt. There has been a crying need for an alternative proposal for that practice, but there has not been a mechanism to pull everything together. In the end, we get this arbitrary decision without any form of consultation, which has caused great distress to a lot of my constituents. I hope that this provision will provide some means of dealing with such issues and would like reassurance on that point.
May I tell the Minister while he is thinking about it—to give him a little more time—that the Minister for London very much appreciated his Alan Curbishley joke?

Phil Woolas: I think that my Parliamentary Private Secretary appreciated it even less. That is probably why she is not here.
The reason for my puzzlement is that I do not honestly think that this clause addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think that the rest of the Bill makes the situation that he describes less likely. This provision is not about the delivery of services. It is about the initial planning phase of a joint assessment of the health needs of the area. The GP capacity is directly and primarily a matter for the PCT. The hon. Gentleman will know that GPs stand in an unusual relationship with PCTs. The joint needs assessment could examine GP capacity as a need of course, but the PCT must take action to increase or decrease that capacity. That relates to our debate about the planning of services and the consultation on that issue. I hesitate to give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee, because the real world will get in the way of any such Government guarantee, particularly if a GP retires or other policies intervene.

Bob Neill: I feel slightly guilty about putting the Minister on the spot, but this has been a timely opportunity to put that particular concern of my constituents on the record. Will he take that concern—particularly the points about consultation and planning—back to his colleagues in the Department of Health?

Phil Woolas: I am more than happy to endorse the press release to the local paper in south-east London. The serious point is that the value of scrutiny has been demonstrated, and whatever policies one puts in place, they will never be perfect. That raises the paradox of devolution and equity. We have devolved power to a London level, but if London disagrees with the decision of a different level, one has problems. However, returning to the narrow confines of the Government new clause, in deference to my boss, the Whip, I shall sit down.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Annual reports
‘(1) Section 23A of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (annual reports) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after “functions” insert “(an “annual report”)”.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for “The report” substitute “The annual report”;
(b) for “their own report” substitute “their annual report”.
(4) In subsection (3), for “the report submitted by them under subsection (1) above” substitute “the annual report”.
(5) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The Commission must lay a copy of the annual report before Parliament.”
(6) Omit subsections (4) and (5) (comments on Commission’s annual report).’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Making complaints etc. electronically
‘(1) Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (Commission for Local Administration in England) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 32 (law of defamation and disclosure of information), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) A notice under subsection (3) above may not be given electronically.”
(3) In section 34 (interpretation of Part), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In this Part of this Act, except as otherwise provided, references to something being done in writing are to it being done in writing whether electronically or otherwise (and references to anything written shall be interpreted accordingly).”’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

Expenses of the Commission
‘In Schedule 4 to the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (the Commission) for paragraphs 6 to 8 substitute—
“5A (1) The Secretary of State must pay to the Commission in respect of each financial year such amount as he determines to be the amount required for the discharge during that year of the functions of the Commission.
(2) A determination under sub-paragraph (1) must be approved by the Treasury.”’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

Delegation
‘In Schedule 4 to the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (the Commission) at the end insert—
“Delegation
13 (1) Any function of a Commissioner may be discharged on the Commissioner’s behalf—
(a) by any person authorised by the Commissioner to do so, and
(b) to the extent so authorised.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the responsibility of the Commissioner for the discharge of the function.”’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

Proposals for joint waste authorities in England
‘(1) A proposal under this section is a proposal to the Secretary of State that an authority be established for a specified area in England to discharge in that area the waste functions specified in the proposal.
(2) A proposal under this section may be made by (and only by) all the local authorities that are local waste authorities in relation to the area specified in the proposal.
(3) A local authority is a “local waste authority” in relation to the specified area if—
(a) its area forms the whole or part of the specified area; and
(b) it currently has one or more of the specified waste functions.
(4) A proposal under this section may not be made if there is a local authority for the whole of the specified area which currently has all of the specified waste functions.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—
(a) matters to be included in a proposal under this section;
(b) information that must accompany a proposal.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5)(a) may in particular provide that a proposal under this section must include proposals—
(a) as to the number of members of the proposed authority (as to membership, see section (membership of joint waste authorities));
(b) as to the number of members to be appointed by each local authority making the proposal;
(c) as to the procedure for appointing a chairman and a vice-chairman;
(d) for the costs of the proposed authority to be met by the local authorities making the proposal, and as to the basis on which the amount payable by each of the local authorities is to be determined.
(7) In making a proposal under this section the local authorities must have regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State as to—
(a) what a proposal should seek to achieve;
(b) matters that should be taken into account in formulating a proposal.
(8) In this section—
“specified” means specified in the proposal;
“waste function” means a function conferred on a local authority by or under—
(c) Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (waste on land);
(d) Part 4 of that Act (litter etc);
(e) section 32 of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (c. 33) (joint municipal waste management strategies: England).
(9) In this Part “local authority” means—
(a) a county council;
(b) a district council;
(c) a London borough council;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London;
(e) the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple;
(f) the under treasurer of the Middle Temple;
(g) an authority established under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51) (joint arrangements for waste disposal functions); or
(h) a joint waste authority established under section (implementation of proposals by order).’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

Consultation
‘(1) A proposal may not be made by any local authorities under section (proposals for joint waste authorities in England) unless—
(a) the local authorities prepared a draft of the proposal; and
(b) each local authority took reasonable steps to consult the following about the draft—
(i) the relevant electors;
(ii) any interested person in the authority’s area.
(2) A person is a “relevant elector”—
(a) in relation to a county council, district council or London borough council, if he is a local government elector for the council’s area;
(b) in relation to the Common Council of the City of London, if his name appears in a ward list published under section 7 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1957 (5 & 6 Eliz 2 c x);
(c) in relation to the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or the under treasurer of the Middle Temple, if his name appears in the ward list published with respect to the ward of Farrington Without in the City under section 7 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1957;
(d) in relation to an authority established under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51) (joint arrangements for waste disposal functions), if he is a relevant elector in relation to any local authority whose area forms part of the area for which the authority was established;
(e) in relation to a joint waste authority established under section (implementation of proposals by order), if he is a relevant elector in relation to any local authority whose area forms the whole or part of the area for which the joint waste authority was established.
(3) In this section, “local government elector” means a person registered as a local government elector in the register of electors in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts.’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

Implementation of proposals by order
‘(1) Where the Secretary of State receives a proposal under section (proposals for joint waste authorities in England) he may by order implement the proposal with or without modifications.
(2) An authority established by an order under subsection (1) is referred to in this Part as a “joint waste authority”.
(3) An order under subsection (1) may make provision enabling the Secretary of State to require the authority established by the order to submit to him a scheme for—
(a) the winding-up of the authority; and
(b) the transfer of its functions, property, staff, rights and liabilities to appropriate local authorities.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide for giving effect (with or without modification) to any scheme submitted to him under a provision made by virtue of subsection (3) and for the dissolution of the authority.
(5) The Secretary of State may exercise his powers under subsection (4) only where—
(a) he receives a request to do so from all the appropriate local authorities; or
(b) he considers that it is necessary to do so.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order exclude any functions from those for which a joint waste authority was established.
(7) An order under this section may include incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision.
(8) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (7) includes in particular provision—
(a) for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities;
(b) for legal proceedings commenced by or against any authority to be continued by or against an authority to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred;
(c) for the transfer of staff, compensation for loss of office, pensions and other staffing matters;
(d) for treating any authority to whom a transfer is made for any purposes as the same person in law as the authority from whom the transfer is made.
(9) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (7) includes provision amending, modifying, excluding or applying (with or without modifications) any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment.
(10) The power of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) to implement a proposal with modifications does not include power to—
(a) establish a joint waste authority for an area that is different from the area specified in the proposal; or
(b) establish a joint waste authority to discharge waste functions that are not specified in the proposal.
(11) In this section—
“appropriate local authority”, in relation to a joint waste authority, means a local authority which would, but for the establishment of the joint waste authority, have one or more of the functions that the joint waste authority has;
“waste function” has the same meaning as in section (proposals for joint waste authorities in England).’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

Membership of joint waste authorities
‘A person may be a member of a joint waste authority only if he is—
(a) a member of a local authority which would, but for the establishment of the joint waste authority, have one or more of the functions that the joint waste authority has;
(b) the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or the under treasurer of the Middle Temple in a case where the sub-treasurer or the under treasurer would, but for the establishment of the joint waste authority, have one or more of the functions that the joint waste authority has.’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

Consequential amendments
‘(1) In section 101(13) of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities), after “police authority” insert “, an authority established for an area in England by an order under section (implementation of proposals by order) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities)”.
(2) In section 1(1) of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value authorities), after paragraph (g) insert—
“(ga) an authority established for an area in England by an order under section (implementation of proposals by order) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities);”.
(3) In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities), after paragraph 15 insert—
“15A An authority established for an area in England by an order under section (implementation of proposals by order) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities).”
(4) In section 24 of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (c. 33) (waste sent to landfills: definitions)—
(a) in subsection (5), for the words “In this Chapter” substitute “Subject to subsection (6), in this Chapter”;
(b) after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) For the purposes of this Chapter, a joint waste authority for an area in England that has the function of disposing of biodegradable municipal waste is the waste disposal authority for that area.
(7) In subsection (6) a “joint waste authority” means an authority established by an order under section (implementation of proposals by order) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.”’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

Joint waste authorities in Wales
‘(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order make provision in relation to Wales applying any provisions of sections (proposals for joint waste authorities in England) to (membership of joint waste authorities) with—
(a) the substitution for references to the Secretary of State of references to the Welsh Ministers; and
(b) such other modifications as they consider appropriate.
(2) An order under this section may include incidental, consequential or supplementary provision, including provision amending or modifying—
(a) any enactment;
(b) any instrument made under an enactment.
(3) The reference in subsection (1) to any provisions of sections (proposals for joint waste authorities in England) to (membership of joint waste authorities) includes a reference to any provisions of Part 14 so far as relating to any of those sections.’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

Interpretation
‘In this Part—
“joint waste authority” has the meaning given by section (implementation of proposals by order)(2);
“local authority” has the meaning given by section (proposals for joint waste authorities in England)(9).’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Single transferable vote
‘(1) This section applies to elections of members of any Principal or Parish Council, including by-elections.
(2) Each vote in the poll at an election shall be a single transferable vote.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a single transferable vote is a vote—
(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter’s order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency; and
(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when—
(i) the vote is not needed to give a prior choice for the necessary quota of votes, or
(ii) when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.’.—[Tom Brake.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Local authority resolution to change electoral system
‘(1) Any local authority may, not later than 12th September in the year that is two years before the year in which it shall take effect, resolve that the next two elections of the local authority will be held using an approved electoral system other than that used for the previous election.
(2) A resolution under this section—
(a) takes effect, subject to paragraph (b), for the next two elections of the local authority; and
(b) continues in effect until either—
(i) a further resolution under this section takes effect; or
(ii) a poll of electors of the local authority held under this Act takes effect.
(3) A local authority may not resolve to change its electoral system more than once every five years.’.
New clause 9—Approved electoral systems
‘(1) The following methods of election shall be approved electoral systems pursuant to this Act—
(a) “First Past the Post” which means the system currently used for elections to the UK Parliament.
(b) “Single Transferable Vote” as defined in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (asp1) by the Scottish Parliament.
(c) An “Additional Member System” as defined in the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46).
(d) An “Alternative Vote” system which is one in which if no candidate obtains the votes of 50 per cent. of those voting in a single member constituency the subsequent preferences of those who voted for the losing candidates are successively taken into account until one candidate has obtained 50 per cent. of those voting.
(e) An “Alternative Vote Plus” system which is an Additional Member System in which the constituency Members are elected by means off the Alternative Vote system.’.

Tom Brake: I had wondered whether this sleep-inducing process of saying “aye” and “no” was going to continue, thereby allowing new clause 1 to slip in.
The new clause is about the single transferable vote. Clearly, some of my colleagues are dedicated followers of STV. In fact, some hon. Members in other parties may feel that my colleagues are obsessed by STV. I hasten to add that I do not put myself in that category. Yesterday we had an historic vote on the House of Lords. Today, there is an opportunity for another historic vote to reform our own voting systems and go for the single transferable vote for local council elections. Clearly, that particular solution is the Rolls-Royce of electoral systems to replace the Austin Allegro that we are currently attempting to drive. The Government might not want to go for the Rolls-Royce solution, but we have new clause 8 in front of us that would provide them with something in between—perhaps the Mondeo of electoral systems.
Let us focus on new clause 1 and the single transferable vote. It is important because proportionality ensures that each vote has the same worth. Hon. Members will know, depending on which part of the country they represent, how the present electoral parliamentary system helps them. Proportionality in south-west London, an area that I represent, is not effective, or at least people’s votes are not reflected effectively in the political representation of Members of Parliament in that area. Fortunately in south-west London, the Liberal Democrats benefit from the lack of proportionality in relation to the Westminster system. The same applies at a local level as well.
We welcome the fact that Scotland is pioneering the use of STV for its local elections. In local elections from 2000 to the last election, voter turnout varied between 29.6 per cent. and a maximum of 40 per cent. Clearly, the turnout was very low. That is because in many parts of the country how people vote makes very little difference in terms of who is elected to represent them on their local council. Hence the need for the single transferable vote, which, we believe would improve voter turnout. Furthermore, it would make councils more representative of the communities that they seek to reflect and their elected representatives would be more representative of the communities that elect them.
In our view, more women would get elected under a single transferable vote system for local elections; currently, only 29 per cent. of local councillors are women. More members of the black and ethnic minority community would be elected as well; only 2 per cent. of local councillors are from that community. 
I am realistic, however. I recognise that, although the Labour party in Scotland has conceded that STV is the way forward for local elections, there is no evidence so far that the Government in Westminster will endorse the system. If the Minister is not willing to support new clause 1, he has new clause 8 as an alternative. It is based on the Parliamentary and Local Elections (Choice of Electoral Systems) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and is about offering options to local councils. Why is that a way forward? We need a mixture of systems, and that principle has been accepted in London, where the electoral system chosen is different from any other in the country. Indeed, a beneficiary of that system is sitting in the Committee with us.

Bob Neill: I hate to sound pedantic, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that I, like all Conservative and Labour GLA members, was elected under the first-past-the-post system.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. However, the electoral system put together to elect members of the Greater London authority elected him, but equally elected other list members.
We accept the principle of different types of electoral systems. New clause 8 would provide options to local authorities in respect of the type of electoral system that they could adopt—whether, as set out in new clause 9, it was first-past-the-post, the single transferable vote, additional member, alternative vote or an alternative vote plus system. Local authorities would have a choice of systems, as they have a choice of whether to go for a mayoral or executive option.

Neil Turner: I wonder why the Liberal Democrats in Scotland did not allow a plurality of systems when they had the opportunity, with the Labour party, of changing the system there.

Tom Brake: I do not have the answer to that, but as a Labour party representative, the hon. Gentleman may be closer to the action there. He may be able to get a response from his own colleagues on why they supported the system now in place.

Neil Turner: I imagine that Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament are still nursing their arms, which were shoved up their backs by the Liberal Democrat MSPs.

Tom Brake: If a small bunch of Liberal Democrats was able to arm-wrench the hon. Gentleman’s Scottish Parliament colleagues as he suggests, I thank him for highlighting what a weak and feeble bunch they are. I shall pass on that message to my colleagues in Scotland, who will welcome it in the run-up to the Scottish elections. I am sure that they will make good use of that information.
New clause 9 sets out the different options that local authorities could go for. In new clause 8, we provide a method through which they would be allowed to opt for and try different systems, although they would not be allowed to change the electoral system on a regular and confusing basis; there would be a period during which they could not change the system.
The voting public cope very well with an electoral system in London that includes borough elections and elections for the Mayor, for the Greater London assembly, for Westminster and for the European Parliament, and may include at some point parish council elections. I am confident that that public would be able to cope with a system that changed from time to time, or with any of the options that local authorities could choose.

Michael Fabricant: I am looking through some of the other new clauses that the hon. Gentleman will be proposing later this afternoon, and I want to get behind his motivation. Could it be despair? I understand that of those who regularly support the Liberal Democrats at general elections, only 16 per cent. could identify “Ming” as the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman. However, I am having difficulty linking that intervention to new clauses 1, 8 or 9. Perhaps he can help.

Michael Fabricant: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is despairing because, given that the Liberal Democrats seem to command only 16 per cent. of support in recent polls in our first-past-the-post system, it is felt that his proposal offers the only way that those of the Liberal Democrat persuasion can get elected to Parliament.

Joe Benton: Order. We should return to the new clause.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr. Benton; I was going to make the point that the hon. Gentleman is tempting me to stray far beyond the remit of the new clauses.
As I stated at the beginning, new clause 1 offers what we consider to be the Rolls-Royce electoral solution—the one that would provide the most representative local government. However, if the Government are not keen on that, they have the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Bury, North. That would provide the sort of choice that the Minister seeks to provide in other respects for local authorities.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Gentleman mentions choice, and my personal choice is the first-past-the-post system. However, new clause 9 lists various voting systems, ranging from first-past-the-post to the single transferable vote. Why can we not choose the system used for elections to the European Parliament? Do the Liberal Democrats favour some versions of proportional representation but not others?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to highlight the fact that the system adopted for the European Parliament was not one that we supported. I also note that the hon. Gentleman supports the first-past-the-post system; perhaps I detect a little self-interest.

Tom Levitt: Just for the record, those who support the first-past-the-post system may also support the alternative vote system, which is on the hon. Gentleman’s list. I note, however, that the drawing of ballots and choosing councillors at random is not included. Surely, it should be an option.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not familiar with the system of drawing councillors’ names in random ballots, but I must not be tempted explore it, Mr. Benton, because you will seek to bring me back to the matter in hand. In fact, I have concluded my remarks. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond positively to our sensible proposals.

Angela Smith: It is rare at this stage of a Committee’s proceedings to have so much excitement. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for raising the issue. I hate to disappoint him yet again—he looks so tragic when I do.
Every voting system has its advantages and disadvantages, and hon. Members will have judged which they believe is best in the interests of democracy. I was somewhat surprised that the new clause was proposed, however, because after looking through my papers over the weekend, I came to the House on Monday only to read The Guardian headline that said, “Campbell sets Brown tests for Lib-Lab coalition deal”. I shall not go too far down this path, Mr. Benton, but given the question before us I think I might be given some licence. For many Liberal Democrat leaders the big issue—the deal-breaker—has been PR. Yet in an official briefing——although it was later retracted—
“journalists were told proportional representation was ‘not a deal breaker or a deal maker’”,
although the Liberal Democrat party previously insisted on it. There clearly has been some change in policy, which is why I was so pleased to see that old habits die hard.

Tom Levitt: That could explain the observation made by the hon. Member for Lichfield a few moments ago. Perhaps it was not the word “Ming” that people did not recognize, it was the word “leader”. [ Laughter. ]

Angela Smith: I have always been known as a very generous person and I do not want to intrude on private grief. I think you would instruct us to stick more closely to the amendment.
There are arguments for and against the introduction of a PR voting system and it has to be recognised that we have new PR systems for the devolved Administrations. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me because of that to welcome his new clause. Many of us are aware of the benefits of a first-past-the-post system, such as the direct relationship between the elected and the elector in a specific geographic area. That is something that many of us in this House greatly appreciate and value.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Smith: I have barely got into my stride. I will give way when I have talked about the merits of first past the post. It is that system that is used to elect councillors and local authorities in England and Wales. Members of the GLA are elected using the additional member system. I think that it does help members to represent the interests of their area when there is that clear relationship between the elected and the elector and when—this is very important—the citizen who elects people knows who they are electing and knows who is representing them. I acknowledge the virtues of some other voting systems but that is a significant advantage of the current system.

Tom Brake: I understand what the Under-Secretary says in relation to the link between a constituency or a ward and the representative, but does she not agree with me that at a ward level, particularly if a ward is represented by three councillors under an STV system, it is still perfectly possible to achieve a link between a recognisable small area and representatives elected under STV?

Angela Smith: Lots of things are possible in life but I still do not think the STV system or the systems described by the hon. Gentleman give that same accountability, which is also important.
Having said that, the Government recognise that first past the post is not the right system in every circumstance. We have a number of different systems. Mayors in local authorities are elected by the supplementary vote system. The Scottish Parliament has another system. The Welsh Assembly and Greater London assembly use the additional member system. The European Parliament uses the list system. In each of those cases there was a good reason why those systems were adopted—including the fact that it was in the Government’s general election manifesto that those systems would be introduced. There was no such promise in our last election manifesto.
I do not think there are any grounds for changing the system for local government elections. That system wherein the elector goes into the polling booth and puts a cross by the name of their preferred candidate, and the candidate who gets the most votes wins, is very straightforward. The hon. Gentleman concentrates on the type of voting system, but a clear theme throughout our deliberations has been the need for strong leadership and strong governance. In democracy, it is not only the type of voting system that is important; the quality of leadership is also a test when we make that assessment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about not wanting to cause too much confusion, but I found that strange when I re-read the new clause, given that if it were accepted councils could resolve to change their electoral system to one of the five types outlined in the new clause. We could end up with each district council a county area choosing a different electoral system with which to elect its members. That would be extraordinarily confusing for the electorate. I do not think you would get clear and accountable representation in those circumstances.
 Tom Brake indicated dissent.

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that could be the outcome.

Tom Brake: Why would it be so confusing?

Angela Smith: If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand why having five different electoral systems used to elect members to various bodies within one county is confusing, it probably explains why he is proposing the new clause and other hon. Members are opposing it.
Following its consultation on electoral reform in local government, the Local Government Association concluded that elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament and the Greater London assembly, which used alternative voting systems, have
“involved greater complexity to the voter”.
It was also concerned that adding complexity might depress turnout or demoralise voters. The democracy task group commissioned by the LGA expressed concern
“that the replacement of first past the post”
with a system of proportional representation will
“inevitably lead to an increase in the number of No Overall Control (NOC) authorities”,
which
“has clear implications for stability of leadership”.
The task group also stated that although there was no consensus
“to either retain or replace the first-past-the-post system...a majority of the Task Group favour retaining and developing the existing system”.
There is an ongoing review of the experiences of new voting systems used in the devolved Administrations. The Government feel that it would be inappropriate to try to pre-empt the findings of the review by encouraging the introduction of yet more electoral systems. In view of the those arguments, I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is convinced that the proposed new clauses would not provide the best way forward and that he will withdraw them.

Tom Brake: I thank the Under-Secretary for setting out the Government’s position so clearly. I am still smarting from that vicious assault on my party leader, but I have just about recovered.
I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary deploy the fact that there might be an increase of authorities with no overall control as an argument against the new clauses as if such a situation would be the end of the world for local authorities. Others might say that such an increase would mean that different parties would have to work together to ensure that the majority views of a local authority were represented.

Alistair Burt: I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind forward and to speculate on whether, in the event of a hung Parliament, the Government’s arguments might be revised to some degree.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I can assure him that the Liberal Democrats will be consistent in all respects and I hope the Government will be likewise.
It is clear that the Under-Secretary is adamant that the Government know best and that there is no scope for allowing either local politicians or a local electorate to decide the appropriate voting system for their locality. It would therefore be pointless to pursue the matter today. We may wish to return to it in the other place—supposing that that is still there.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 33

Incorporation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
‘(1) In this Act “the Articles” means the provisions set out in Articles 2 to 11 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
(2) Those Articles are to have effect for the purposes of this Act.
(3) The Articles are set out in Schedule [Articles 2-11 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government].’.—[Tom Brake.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1—Articles 2 to 11 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government—

Article 2—Constitutional and legal foundation for local self-government

The principle of local self-government shall be recognised in domestic legislation, and where practicable in the constitution.

Article 3—Concept of local self-government

1 Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population.
2 This right shall be exercised by councils or assemblies composed of members freely elected by secret ballot on the basis of direct, equal, universal suffrage, and which may possess executive organs responsible to them. This provision shall in no way affect recourse to assemblies of citizens, referendums or any other form of direct citizen participation where it is permitted by statute.

Article 4—Scope of local self-government

1 The basic powers and responsibilities of local authorities shall be prescribed by the constitution or by statute. However, this provision shall not prevent the attribution to local authorities of powers and responsibilities for specific purposes in accordance with the law.
2 Local authorities shall, within the limits of the law, have full discretion to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not excluded from their competence nor assigned to any other authority.
3 Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibility to another should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy.
4 Powers given to local authorities shall normally be full and exclusive. They may not be undermined or limited by another, central or regional, authority except as provided for by the law.
5 Where powers are delegated to them by a central or regional authority, local authorities shall, insofar as possible, be allowed discretion in adapting their exercise to local conditions.
6 Local authorities shall be consulted, insofar as possible, in due time and in an appropriate way in the planning and decision-making processes for all matters which concern them directly.

Article 5—Protection of local authority boundaries

Changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned, possibly by means of a referendum where this is permitted by statute.

Article 6—Appropriate administrative structures and resources for the tasks of local authorities

1 Without prejudice to more general statutory provisions, local authorities shall be able to determine their own internal administrative structures in order to adapt them to local needs and ensure effective management.
2 The conditions of service of local government employees shall be such as to permit the recruitment of high-quality staff on the basis of merit and competence; to this end adequate training opportunities, remuneration and careers prospects shall be provided.

Article 7—Conditions under which responsibilities at local level are exercised

1 The conditions of office of local elected representatives shall provide for free exercise of their functions.
2 They shall allow for appropriate financial compensation for expenses incurred in the exercise of the office in question as well as, where appropriate, compensation for loss of earnings or remuneration for work done and corresponding social welfare protection.
3 Any functions and activities which are deemed incompatible with the holding of local elective office shall be determined by statute or fundamental legal principles.

Article 8—Administrative supervision of local authorities’ activities

1 Any administrative supervision of local authorities may only be exercised according to such procedures and in such cases as are provided for by the constitution or by statute.
2 Any administrative supervision of the activities of the local authorities shall normally aim only at ensuring compliance with the law and with constitutional principles. Administrative supervision may however be exercised with regard to expediency by higher-level authorities in respect of tasks the execution of which is delegated to local authorities.
3 Administrative supervision of local authorities shall be exercised in such a way as to ensure that the intervention of the controlling authority is kept in proportion to the importance of the interests which it is intended to protect.

Article 9—Financial resources of local authorities

1 Local authorities shall be entitled, within national economic policy, to adequate financial resources of their own, of which they may dispose freely within the framework of their powers.
2 Local authorities’ financial resources shall be commensurate with the responsibilities provided for by the constitution and the law.
3 Part at least of the financial resources of local authorities shall derive from local taxes and charges of which, within the limits of the statute, they have the power to determine the rate.
4 The financial systems on which resources available to local authorities are based shall be of a sufficiently diversified and buoyant nature to enable them to keep pace as far as practically possible with the real evolution of the cost of carrying out their tasks.
5 The protection of financially weaker local authorities calls for the institution of financial equalisation procedures or equivalent measures which are designed to correct the effects of the unequal distribution of potential sources of finance and of the financial burden they must support. Such procedures or measures shall not diminish the discretion local authorities may exercise within their own sphere of responsibility.
6 Local authorities shall be consulted, in an appropriate manner, on the way in which redistributed resources are to be allocated to them.
7 As far as possible, grants to local authorities shall not be earmarked for the financing of specific projects. The provision of grants shall not remove the basic freedom of local authorities to exercise policy discretion within their own jurisdiction.
8 For the purpose of borrowing for capital investment, local authorities shall have access to the national capital market within the limits of the law.

Article 10—Local authorities’ right to associate

1 Local authorities shall be entitled, in exercising their powers, to co-operate and, within the framework of the law, to form consortia with other local authorities in order to carry out tasks of common interest.
2 The entitlement of local authorities to belong to an association for the protection and promotion of their common interests and to belong to an international association of local authorities shall be recognised in each State.
3 Local authorities shall be entitled, under such conditions as may be provided for by the law, to co-operate with their counterparts in other States.

Article 11—Legal protection of local self-government

Local authorities shall have the right of recourse to a judicial remedy in order to secure free exercise of their powers and respect for such principles of local self-government as are enshrined in the constitution or domestic legislation.’.

Tom Brake: I believe that new clause 33 and new schedule 1 might command a greater degree of interest, if not support, from the Government than the previous group of new clauses. New clause 33 and new schedule 1 relate to the European charter of local self-government, in which the Minister indicated an interest during our sitting on 22 February. The purpose of the proposed measures is to ensure that the principle of local self government is recognised in legislation.
For those who are not so familiar with it, the charter states:
“All local authorities should manage a substantial proportion of public affairs in the interests of the local population”,
which is something that I am sure all hon. Members support. The charter also states:
“The powers of local government must be recognised in legislation”
and that
“local authorities must be able to act freely on all matters that they are best placed to deal with”.
That is motherhood and apple pie in certain respects, but the charter contains a phrase that might be more problematic for the Government:
“Financial resources must be made available to local authorities to local authorities to enable them to carry out their tasks”.
Clearly, the Government recognise the issues. On 22 February, the Minister indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, who leads for the Liberal Democrats on such matters, that he was inclined to pursue the issue. In fact, he invited us to table written questions to enable him to come back with further detail on the matter. I assure the Minister that questions were tabled today. We have not given him much time, but they were tabled electronically so they will be in the system and he will be able to see them in a few days, and I am sure that he can respond to them in writing. The purpose of the written questions was to find out what discussions have taken place between the Government and local government—either individual local authorities or local government representative organisations—on the European charter of local self-government and the timetable for any future ratification of the charter.
The amendment, perhaps unlike those in the previous group, is positive. It would ensure that something the Government recognise as important is embedded in domestic legislation so that local government will have the safeguards that all members of the Committee want it to have to ensure that it can carry on its business in the way that we feel is appropriate and very much in the spirit of the Bill. With that, I conclude my remarks and hope to receive a more positive response from the Minister on new clause 33 and new schedule 1 than I did on the new clause relating to STV.

Phil Woolas: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has tabled the questions electronically, a modernisation introduced when I was serving under my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he was Leader of the House.
The Government signed the European charter of local self-government on 3 June 1997 and ratified it on 24 April 1998. They did not choose to exercise the right to reservations to certain provisions allowed by the charter, so all its provisions have been relevant to local government since August 1998. In the explanatory memorandum that was laid before Parliament recommending that the United Kingdom ratify the charter the then Minister for Local Government and Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), accepted that
“Subscribing to the charter strengthens the Government’s partnership with local government and will enable key domestic policies to be developed and implemented more effectively”.
For that reason, we were pleased to ratify the charter on the basis that it would enshrine
“basic principles already reflected in the United Kingdom of local democracy”.
At the time, we also made clear that any future legislation affecting local government should further strengthen the degree of compliance with aspects of the charter and ensure continued compatibility with its provisions. I am therefore happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that subsequent reforms to the system of local government in England and, indeed, those detailed in the Bill adhere to the provisions in the charter and the spirit in which it was developed.
For example, part 1 of article 10 of the charter sets out that local authorities shall be entitled to co-operate with other local authorities to carry out tasks of common interest, a prerogative granted by giving local authorities the power of well-being under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. Therefore, although we agree with the reasoning of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington in tabling the amendments, the Government see no reason to accept them on the basis that they would add nothing to the recognition that we have already given to the right to local self-government by ratifying the charter and adhering to its principles in subsequent reforms. That is the bad news.
 Furthermore, we do not have in our parliamentary system a broad tradition of incorporating international treaty obligations wholesale into our domestic legislation when there is no need to do so. My notes do not say, “Pause for intervention from Conservative Members regarding human rights law,” although they ought to. However, in the absence of such an intervention, I shall answer the question that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was going to ask. His predecessor would certainly have asked it.
 Hon. Members may say that the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European convention on human rights, a Council of Europe treaty, into domestic law. However, the 1998 Act is distinct for one significant reason: it incorporated a human rights legal framework into domestic law, for the first time requiring domestic law to be interpreted as compatible with the convention. It provided a system of legal challenge and redress for UK citizens who were aggrieved about their rights, as set out in the convention. Its purpose was to bring those home those rights without the need, as was the case prior to the 1998 Act, for citizens to resort to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for any matter arising in relation to their rights under the convention. In other words, the Human Rights Act incorporated into domestic law that which was already domestic law, as covered by the treaty, and simply meant that one could access the law without having to go to Strasbourg. The European charter of local self-government provides no such mechanism of redress or challenge, so there is no case for incorporating its provisions wholesale into domestic law.

Tom Brake: The Minister may be about to deal with this matter, but he has left me rather confused. Will he clarify why he suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove submit a written question? Was it so that the Minister could explain that the matter had already been ratified, everything is hunky-dory and we do not need to make any changes?

Phil Woolas: No, it was to say that the Government agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and that the purposes, intent and outcome of the European charter—which is debated and is an important issue in local government, as the hon. Gentleman knows—are already in place and in operation and form one of the tests of new legislation.
I was going to say what the differences are in respect of the Human Rights Act, but the hon. Gentleman did not argue that there was a parallel, although others would. There is no case for incorporating the provisions of the European charter of local self-government wholesale into domestic law, because it provides no mechanism for redress or challenge, which is in stark contrast to the argument that I have just outlined in relation to the Human Rights Act.
Even if there were to be some monitoring or enforcement mechanism attached to the charter, which there is not, the relationship between the two instruments is different. One protects the rights of individual citizens and the other ensures that domestic institutional structures conform with internationally accepted norms. I strongly support the hon. Gentleman’s views, as anybody who has read my speech to the Committee of the Regions would understand. [Hon. Members: “We all have.”] I am glad to hear that. I fell asleep reading that speech to myself. Hon. Members may say that that is true of all my speeches. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says, “Get on with it!” —and I have lost my place.

Alistair Burt: How much does the Minister think that those in local government can rely on the assurances contained in the European charter of local self-government, bearing in mind that local decisions made in the past couple of years by the people of France and the Netherlands on the rejection of the European constitution are presently being undermined by processes in the EU to get round the referendums that said no to the constitution?

Joe Benton: Order. We are going well outside the scope of this debate.

Phil Woolas: The European charter is a treaty and member states are therefore obliged to comply with both it and the other treaties that have been mentioned. The proposed constitution is not a treaty. There is no redress mechanism in the European charter, so including the charter in UK law wholesale would duplicate pre-existing domestic law and would be unnecessary.
I strongly support the principles behind the charter, and I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about the important part that the charter has played in delivering democratic local governance—and not just in the UK, incidentally. However, the new clause is unnecessary and it would introduce a confusing innovation into the expression of our existing legal framework for democratic local self-government. The Biggleswade villagers of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire would rise even more in anger at that. I ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to consider those remarks.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his explanation and for his clarification that the charter has been ratified. Given that incorporation in UK legislation would be inappropriate in practical terms because of the lack of any redress mechanism or enforcement powers, the decent thing to do is not to press my arguments. Therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 170

Orders, regulations and guidance

Amendments made: No. 236, in clause 170, page 122, line 41, after ‘section’ insert ‘(joint waste authorities in Wales) or’.
No. 237, in clause 170, page 122, line 42, at end insert—
‘(2A) An order under section (joint waste authorities in Wales), other than an order to which subsection (2B) applies, is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
(2B) An order under section (joint waste authorities in Wales) which includes provision amending an enactment may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.’.
No. 238, in clause 170, page 123, line 1, leave out ‘, 32 or 173’ and insert ‘or 32’.
No. 239, in clause 170, page 123, line 4, after ‘17’ insert—
‘or (implementation of proposals by order)’.
No. 240, in clause 170, page 123, line 4, after ‘17’ insert ‘or 173’.
No. 241, in clause 170, page 123, line 14, at end insert—
‘(4A) In relation to an order under section 173—
(a) the reference in subsection (3) above to an enactment includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation; and
(b) the reference in that subsection to subordinate legislation of which a draft was required to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament includes an instrument of which a draft was required to be laid before and approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.’.
No. 242, in clause 170, page 123, line 21, leave out ‘or Chapter 1 of Part 5’ and insert—
‘, Chapter 1 of Part 5 or section (proposals for joint waste authorities in England)’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Clause 170, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 171 to 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 174

Extent

Amendments made: No. 243, in clause 174, page 124, line 7, after ‘section’ insert—
‘(Power to change date of local elections to date of European Parliamentary general election) or’.
No. 195, in clause 174, page 124, line 7, at end insert 
‘(politically restricted posts: consequential amendments) or by’.
No. 244, in clause 174, page 124, line 7, at end insert ‘(consequential amendments) or by’.
No. 260, in clause 174, page 124, line 8, after first ‘Schedule’ insert ‘1,’.
No. 261, in clause 174, page 124, line 8, after ‘Part’ insert ‘1,’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Clause 174, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 175

Commencement

Amendments made: No. 245, in clause 175, page 124, line 25, at end insert
‘except section (Health and social care: joint strategic needs assessments);’.
No. 246, in clause 175, page 124, line 33, leave out ‘and 108’ and insert
‘, 108 and (joint waste authorities in Wales)’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Clause 175, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 176 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Structural and Boundary Change: Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 247, in schedule 1, page 127, line 21, leave out from beginning to ‘(electoral’ and insert—
‘(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 6(2)(a)’.
No. 248, in schedule 1, page 127, line 23, at end insert—
‘(3) In section 12 (supplementary provision about orders to dissolve parish councils etc)—
(a) in subsection (2), for the words from “section 20” to the end substitute “section 16 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (agreements about incidental matters) shall apply as if—
(a) the reference in subsection (1) to an order under section 7 or 10 of that Act were to an order under section 10 or 11 of this Act; and
(b) the reference in subsection (5)(b) to any order or regulations under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of that Act were to an order under section 10 or 11 of this Act.”;
(b) in subsection (3), for “such order” substitute “order under section 10 or 11 above”.
(4) In Schedule 2 (constitution and membership of London borough councils), in paragraph 7, in each of sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (2) after “1992” insert “or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.

Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)

12 In Schedule 1A to the Race Relations Act 1976 (bodies and other persons subject to general statutory duty), in Part 1, omit paragraph 33.

Rent Act 1977 (c. 42)

13 In section 62(1) of the Rent Act 1977 (registration areas), after “1992” insert “or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (orders constituting new local government areas etc)”.

Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)

14 In Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 (words and expressions defined), in the definition of “London borough” for “or Part II of the Local Government Act 1992” substitute “, Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992 or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.

Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13)

15 In section 1 of the Coroners Act 1988 (appointment of coroners)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “1992” insert “or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”;
(b) in subsection (1A)(e) for “or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003” substitute “, section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.

Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41)

16 (1) The Local Government Finance Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 74(2A) (levies), for “or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003” substitute “, section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.
(3) In section 89 (collection funds)—
(a) in subsection (2), for “subsection (2A)” substitute “subsections (2A) to (2C)”;
(b) after subsection (2B) insert—
“(2C) In the case of—
(a) a district council or London borough council established by an order under Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, or
(b) a county council to which the functions of district councils in relation to the county council’s area are transferred by or in consequence of such an order,
the collection fund must be established on a date specified in the order or in regulations made under section 14 of that Act.”
(4) In section 91 (general funds)—
(a) in subsection (1)(aa) for “or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003” substitute “, section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”;
(b) in subsection (3) for “and (3C)” substitute “to (3D)”;
(c) in subsection (3B) omit “(in this section referred to as “the reorganisation date”)”;
(d) after subsection (3C) insert—
“(3D) In the case of—
(a) a district council or London borough council established by an order under Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, or
(b) a county council to which the functions of district councils in relation to the county council’s area are transferred by or in consequence of such an order,
the general fund must be established on a date specified in the order or in regulations made under section 14 of that Act.”;
(e) in subsection (8) for “county council such as is referred to in subsection (3B)(b) above” substitute “relevant county council”;
(f) after subsection (8) insert—
“(9) In subsection (8)—
“relevant county council” means—
(a) a county council such as is referred to in subsection (3B)(b) above, or
(b) an existing county council to which the functions of district councils in relation to the county council’s area are transferred by or in consequence of an order under Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and
“the reorganisation date” means the date on which the council is required by this section to establish its general fund.”

Food Safety Act 1990 (c. 16)

17 In section 27(5) of the Food Safety Act 1990 (appointment of public analysts), omit the words “pursuant to a structural change”.

Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)

18 (1) The Environment Act 1995 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 75(8) (National Parks: powers to make orders), for “Part II of the Local Government Act 1992” substitute “Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.
(3) In section 79(1) (interpretation of Part 3), in the definition of “public authority”—
(a) omit the words “or residuary body”;
(b) after “1992” insert “, any residuary body established under section 17 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.

Police Act 1996 (c. 16)

19 (1) The Police Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1(2)(a) (police areas), for “or section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992” substitute “section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992 or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.
(3) In section 100(1) (chief constables affected by local government reorganisations etc), for “section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992” substitute “Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)

20 In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities), in paragraph 23 for “section 22 of the Local Government Act 1992” substitute “section 17 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c. 10)

21 (1) In the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003, after section 27 insert—
“27A Saving for provisions of Local Government Act 1992 as applied
(1) In this section “the relevant time” means the coming into force of the repeals in the Local Government Act 1992 made by Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
(2) This Act shall have effect from the relevant time as if those repeals had not been made.”
(2) The power under section 173 of this Act to amend the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003—
(a) is not limited by this paragraph;
(b) includes power to amend or repeal section 27A of that Act.

Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c. 21)

22 (1) The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2 (power to create combined fire and rescue authorities), in each of subsections (9)(c) and (10)(a), for “Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c.19) or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c.10)” substitute “section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.
(3) In section 4(7)(b) (combined authorities under the Fire Services Act 1947), for “Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c.19) or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c.10)” substitute “section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 or Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

Parishes: Further Amendments

Amendments made: No. 249, in schedule 5, page 135, line 14, leave out ‘this Part’ and insert ‘paragraphs 2 to 5A’.
No. 250, in schedule 5, page 135, line 19, at end insert—
‘(3) In subsection (6)—
(a) for “section 16 of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997” substitute “section 61 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”;
(b) for “section 16 of the Act of 1997” substitute “section 61 of the 2007 Act”.
2A (1) Section 10 (power to dissolve parish councils in small parishes) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after “district council” in each place insert or “London borough council”.’.
No. 251, in schedule 5, page 135, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “district council” in each place insert “or London borough council”;
(b) after “same district” insert “or London borough”.’.
No. 252, in schedule 5, page 135, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
‘(3A) In subsection (4) after “district council” in each place insert “or London borough council”.
(4) In subsection (5) for “section 16 of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997” in each place substitute “section 61 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.’.
No. 253, in schedule 5, page 135, line 37, at end insert—
‘3A (1) Section 12 (provision supplementary to sections 9 to 11) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “district councils” in the first place insert “or by a London borough council”;
(b) after “district councils” in the second place insert “or the London borough council”.’.
No. 254, in schedule 5, page 136, line 15, at end insert—
‘4A (1) Section 137 (power of local authorities to incur expenditure for certain purposes) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (9) for “means a parish or community council” substitute “means—
(a) a parish council which is not an eligible parish council for the purposes of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000, or
(b) a community council”.’.
No. 255, in schedule 5, page 136, line 25, at end insert—
‘5A (1) Schedule 3 (establishment of new authorities in England) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 10(1), (2) and (3) (parish councillors) for “Part II of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997” substitute “Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007”.’.
No. 256, in schedule 5, page 136, line 28, leave out paragraphs 6 to 10.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 6

Byelaws: Further Amendments

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Phil Woolas: The schedule is given effect by clause 103, which repeals a number of outmoded or unnecessary provisions concerning matters which byelaws can currently address in the interests of tidying up and removing outdated provisions. For example, the schedule deals with section 231(1) of the Public Health Act 1936 so that references to byelaws regulating the location of bathing machines and the costumes to be worn by bathers are omitted.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on such an important provision. Where did the pressure come from for the changes in the byelaws? What evidence can he put before the Committee that the byelaws are in fact outdated and no longer needed?

Phil Woolas: From busybody local Conservative local councillors. Nudist beaches is the answer.
Patrick Hall (Bedford) (Lab) rose—

Phil Woolas: I give way.
 Patrick Hall indicated dissent.

Phil Woolas: No, I do not give way. My hon. Friend does not want to be drawn. There are none in Bedford—beaches, I mean.
The schedule also makes further minor amendments relating to health byelaws to remove obsolete provisions and makes minor refinements to provisions relating to enforcement by police community support officers, so that the enforcement of byelaws is consistent with the enforcement against similar low-level nuisances. The serious point is that to ensure that legislation is respected, we must have a means of abolishing outdated laws. Of course, the schedule will not remove the power to introduce byelaws consistent with the law.

Tom Brake: I have looked carefully at the schedule, and I believe that there is an omission relating to the powers of the Department for Transport covering smoking in Eldon Garden.

Phil Woolas: I am assured that there is no such omission, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his vigilance. He might recall that during debate on the part of the Bill relating to parish byelaws, the Government argued successfully—he accepted it—that in order to be truly devolutionary, it was better to give an all-encompassing power rather than to name specific bodies. I have explained the schedule, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Schedules 9 and 13 agreed to.

Schedule 15

Repeals

Amendments made: No. 257, in schedule 15, page 167, line 10, at end insert—
 ‘Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)
 In Schedule 1A, in Part 1, paragraph 33.
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41)
In section 91(3B), the words “(in this section referred to as “the reorganisation date”)”.
Food Safety Act 1990 (c. 16)
In section 27(5), the words “pursuant to a structural change”.’.
No. 258, in schedule 15, page 168, line 13, at end insert—
‘Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)
In section 79(1), in the definition of “public authority”, the words “or residuary body”.’.
—[Mr. Woolas.]

Phil Woolas: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in schedule 15, page 170, line 48, leave out ‘4’ and insert ‘1’.
The amendment is simply a correction of a drafting error in part 7 of schedule 15. The reference to schedule 4 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 should have been a reference to schedule 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 148, in schedule 15, page 173, line 10, column 2, at end insert—
‘Section 42.’.
No. 149, in schedule 15, page 173, line 11, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 1, paragraph 8(2)(d).
Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)
In Schedule 16, paragraphs 101 and 102.’.
No. 150, in schedule 15, page 173, line 20, column 2, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 2, paragraph 31(a).’.
No. 259, in schedule 15, page 173, line 35, at end insert—

‘Part 11A The Commission for Local Administration in England

Short title and chapter

Extent of repeal
 Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)
In section 23— (a) in subsection (4), the words from “after consultation” to the end; (b) in subsection (6), the words from “, and shall in any case vacate office” to the end.
Section 23A(4) and (5).
In Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5).
Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)
Section 24(1).
In Schedule 11, paragraph 37.
Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26)
In Schedule 7, paragraph 5(2) and (4).
Public Service Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 (c. 10)
In Schedule 6— (a) paragraph 9(5); (b) paragraph 18(11).’.
 —[Angela E. Smith.]

Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.

Alistair Burt: Before we come to the debate on the schedule, may I say on the Opposition’s behalf how much we have appreciated being chaired by you, Mr. Benton, during these proceedings? We should be grateful if you also passed on that message to Mr. Chope. In thanking you, we also thank your hard-working staff and all Officers of the House. I know that in a moment, the Minister will thank his team and colleagues, both from his own Department and from the Department of Health. We have all benefited from their hard work in substantiating the clauses and those other issues that have been put before us. The conduct of the proceedings and the way in which both Ministers have dealt with the matters before us have been entirely conducive to an extremely favourable atmosphere in the Committee. We have worked hard, got things on the record and said what we wanted to say, and have done so in the very best of good humour.
Proceedings have been enlivened by the occasional champagne moment. May I beg your indulgence for two seconds, Mr. Benton, and consider the candidates eligible for giving us the champagne moment of the series? There are one or two on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Bedford deserves one or two mentions for having pushed the odd amendment under the wire.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford has kept us in order, and his occasional prompt has been helpful to us all. The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for Carshalton and Wallington have produced their own exceptional moments, not least this afternoon when yet again they put forward STV—more in hope than expectation—and gave it a good run.
On my own Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, who is sadly not with us this afternoon, ensured that Shropshire was mentioned as much as Bedfordshire. He spoke warmly of the powers that might have been lost in his area with the powers of direction that we discussed during the early part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did a great deal to ensure that Bromley and Chislehurst was kept well on the map. His extensive knowledge of local government matters in London and of Pratts Bottom provided great moments for the Committee.
Running up very much on the rails is my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. In moving very creditably the first amendment that I suspect he has moved to a Committee, he introduced us to the formidable Mrs. Burrowes. I hope that she will appreciate that by her endeavours, we have now gone beyond the formidable. We now know that we can also refer to her as redoubtable, rigorous, exacting, tremendous, colossal, indomitable and—my personal favourite—puissant.

David Burrowes: My wife will not appreciate being called colossal, even though she is five weeks away from having our sixth child.

Alistair Burt: This lady, against whom none of us should play Scrabble for cash, has risen still further in the estimation of this Committee with news of the pending sixth member of the Burrowes household. May I ask my hon. Friend what his majority is as he is doing a valid job in trying to increase it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has the honour and distinction of being the very first member of any Standing Committee to ask a witness their business and to start off the proceedings of the witness process in Standing Committees in the House. He will always be remembered for asking the first question in such a session. It was a moment of history and certainly a champagne moment.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Member for Poole will also be remembered for the wonderful speech in which he moved an amendment and then disclosed that he had forgotten why he was moving it.

Alistair Burt: I discount that because so many Ministers do that. It is less of a champagne moment than a recurring occasion.
Just before I close my remarks on the Ministers, I have to say we remember the Under-Secretary carrying through with grace a number of different clauses, particularly those relating to parishes. The Minister for Local Government has carried the bulk of the Bill. His personal good humour and qualities make it damned difficult to pin anything on him. He is exceptionally reasonable and knowledgeable in these areas, and has certainly given the Committee the benefit of his great wisdom and we have enjoyed working with him and occasionally fighting against him.
Without doubt, the first champagne moment was the best: the explosion on to this Committee of the blond bombshell, who was moved to put Lichfield on the map because he was so tired of hearing about Shropshire and Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend told us in great detail about the solid gold baubles held in Lichfield, in contrast with our Mace downstairs, which is only silver gilt. As you know, Mr. Benton, it is not only what you say, but how you say it. The moment that my hon. Friend brought Lichfield into this Committee will be long remembered. He therefore has my vote for the champagne moment of the proceedings.

Patrick Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that moment was somewhat reduced in intensity when we learned that the hon. Member for Lichfield does not represent the biggest parish council in England?

Alistair Burt: Those are minor details. We should not forget the majesty of the moment.
Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Benton. I thank all those who have helped move the Committee proceedings forward. We look forward to dealing with the Bill on Report in due course.

Tom Brake: I echo many of the comments made by the official Opposition spokesman in thanking you, Mr. Benton, and Mr. Chope, for chairing the Committee so effectively. I thank your officials for providing the appropriate support and help at the time when it was needed. I thank the Ministers for their repartee, which I have enjoyed considerably during our debates, as have my hon. Friends.
 There have been so many champagne moments that I suspect that the term “champagne socialist” is about to make a reappearance. The Opposition have lost a number of major battles, but we have won a few skirmishes along the way and we will return to a number of the issues on Report and, no doubt, in another place when the time comes, where, after last night’s proceedings in the House, this Bill will be received in a very rowdy fashion. However, I am sure that those in another place will enjoy it. I have enjoyed the proceedings and look forward to many more in this place.

Patrick Hall: If I may, I should like to say from the Back Benches how much I have enjoyed being a member of the Committee and what a positive experience it has been. I thank you, Mr. Benton, and your colleague, Mr. Chope, for helping to maintain the positive atmosphere from which we have all benefited.
It is not unknown for Government Whips, whatever the Government, to pack Committees with hon. Members whose key qualification is that they have no knowledge of, or any interest in, the matters at hand. However, that has not happened on this occasion. Colleagues in this Committee have a deep interest in local government and public involvement issues and they have experience, to boot, which has benefited the scrutiny and debate that we have enjoyed. Perhaps Government Whips can take this message to heart and pass it on: this is the way things should be done in future.
We have learned about towns throughout the land, some of which I had never heard of before, including some fine names from Manchester way, which I should like to hear again.

Andrew Gwynne: There is Duckinfield, Audenshaw and my home town, Denton.

Patrick Hall: I thank my hon. Friend. We also heard about Biggles, the famous constituent of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, who I had not come across for some decades—in fact, since I was a boy—in respect of the hon. Gentleman’s views on European elections. I wondered where he had flown to. Clearly, he landed in Biggleswade—and there he will stay. Most welcome of all have been the numerous opportunities to make relevant and highly deserved references to Bedford, Kempston and Bedfordshire.
We have also learned that, as a result of the hard work and commitment of a number of Committee members, they are ready to forego their lunch or dinner, depending on what part of the country they come from.
 Above all, we have benefited from the constructive, co-operative approach of all Opposition Members. The tone was undoubtedly set by my hon. Friends the Ministers, who have, by their listening approach, generated that response, which is welcomed by all hon. Members. Not only have my hon. Friends rejected a centralising authoritarian tone, they have been devolutionary and open in their approach. That has had the unexpected benefit of generating what my neighbour, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, famously coined a champagne moment followed by many more. I have not kept count, but no doubt we shall see the benefits one day. A sad fact about the conclusion of our proceedings is that there will be no more. I thank all members of the Committee for what they have done to make this a worthwhile experience.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for your chairing of the Committee along with Mr. Chope, and for allowing me a couple of minutes to reflect on the context in which the Bill now proceeds. As others have said, it has been a Committee stage of great humour and constructive debate and one in which people have boasted about the achievements of local authorities. I have not had to say anything much about Derbyshire’s achievements. Everyone knows that it was the first county council to receive a four-star rating and that it has maintained the position at the top of the tree, which speaks for itself.
In my capacity as chair of the all-party group on the community and voluntary sector, I wish to say a word about the importance of the Bill. For the record, I also chair the board of trustees of the Community Development Foundation and I am a member of the Commission on the Future of Volunteering, as is the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. During the past 12 months, the third sector has come of age under legislation. Before then, we did not have a Minister for the third sector or an office of the third sector in the Cabinet Office, which works closely with Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government. We did not even have a Department with “communities” in its title and that was dedicated to prioritising the values that communities embody.
Twelve months ago, we did not have the Charities Act 2006. I had the honour of serving on the Standing Committee that discussed it. The Act brought about the most radical uprating of charities legislation for 400 years. It brought in root-and-branch changes to how charities in the voluntary sector operate. This week, the Charity Commission launched its consultation on the meaning of public benefit. In the past few weeks, the Offender Management Bill has produced a great debate about the role of the voluntary sector in delivering such services. I very much hope that, following last night’s vote, my suggestion of indirect elections to another place might be taken up and that the voluntary sector will be well represented there, too.
This Bill has been dynamic and almost revolutionary in its approach to how the voluntary sector, the third sector, the community sector and social enterprise feature within the framework of our society. It has recognised the sector like no other measure before it. It has involved local area agreements and local strategic partnerships. It has made the delivery of services something in which the sector will be a real partner. The development of community strategies will be a major part of the Bill and we cannot exclude community groups and voluntary sector groups from that. The Bill has given them a statutory role in consultation. It has even integrated them into the scrutiny of health.
Although the Bill has not been hitting the headlines, it will achieve many of the aims of the Sustainable Communities Bill that is before the House. We shall look back on it as a landmark for having liberated that sector and as a milestone in the development of participative democracy. I accept that it still has a long way to go, but the voluntary and community sector has many friends in another place and I am sure that its role will only be enhanced by the treatment there. I wish the Bill fair wind in another place. I look forward to it coming back to the Floor of the House and, one day, we shall look back on it not only as representing an entertaining and historic few weeks because of how the Committee operated, but as a landmark in the history of the voluntary sector.

Phil Woolas: I echo the comments that have been made. I want to use this opportunity to remind the Committee about the proposals on unitary consideration and re-emphasise that I have written to all members of the Committee and you, Mr. Benton, fulfilling my pledge to give details of the amendment that we intend to introduce on Report. There was some concern and I accepted that. We have concluded our discussions with the Local Government Association and that is reflected in the amendment. I said that I would write to the Committee and I did so this morning.
I would like to make a few observations. First, I echo the regret that the press do not report the proceedings of Standing Committees as much as they should. Due to the changes that have been introduced, I know that there is access to our deliberations through the internet. I believe that Standing Committees are webcast—I am not sure what that means, but it says it here. However, I really do think that commentators and parliamentary reporters should report more because these matters are of importance to many tens of thousands of councillors around the country.
I know that the Minister for Local Government, whoever he or she is, and his or her colleagues, receive much correspondence on these matters in their postbags. I have been following the Local Government Chronicle and the Municipal Journal—I do not wish only to pick out the LGC—and they have not been following our proceedings as closely as I would wish.

Patrick Hall: Is it not a comment on the nature of much of our media that I am sure that the Committee would have been reported on if we had had lots of personal nasty rows? Instead, we have got on with the job that Parliament expects and are completely ignored.

Phil Woolas: That is the dilemma of politics. I was reflecting on the fact that had the short title of the Bill been ‘Abolition of Swimming Gear: Brighton Beach’, it probably would have got more coverage, if you will pardon the pun. I have been working on that; perhaps I should not have bothered.

David Burrowes: The Committee would do well to consider the evidence session of the Public Administration Select Committee today which was looking at that very point, with evidence taken from mySociety. The problem is not so much the media, but ourselves. We are in the dark ages in terms of electronically communicating the affairs of the House and, in particular, Standing Committees, in a consistent manner. That is why there is a problem of communication.

Phil Woolas: Clearly the hon. Gentleman’s five children have been informing him of the state of modern technology. I too have that benefit from youngsters. The problem involves a bit of both, I believe. I make that point because the law is based on the intent of Parliament. That is expressed by Members in making legislation as well as by Government in putting forward proposals. That is important.
My most sober moment during the Committee’s deliberations was when the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire returned from his visit and reminded us that although we may have differences over issues of public policy, they pale into insignificance compared to the difficulties of some countries.
As someone who has been the Whip on three local government Bills as well as having helped to shape this Bill, my second reflection is that I strongly believe that there is a significant step-by-step improvement going on within local government. The independent auditors say so, although the public do not always say so and that is their right. Their expectations increase and we have to just accept that. That is the nature of democratic politics.
Local government is, however, improving. One of the reasons for that is a broad consensus across the Local Government Association. I pay tribute to Sir Jeremy Beecham, David Kemp, Sir Simon Milton and Lord Bruce-Lockhart who have put into place that consensus. They have built up a consensus that is not wishy-washy or based on the lowest common denominator. We work with them across Whitehall and across local councils, and we tried to shape the White Paper and the Bill in the context of that consensus. I believe that that has been reflected in our deliberations. 
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was kind enough to make some flattering remarks about my good self. I wish that he would stop, because his remarks do not always help me when I am in the White Hart in Lydgate, but I am grateful to him none the less. I have always shared the attitude of others from Greater Manchester that more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar. That is worth remembering in life as well as in politics.
In my view, the Bill is mistitled. It is not a Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill; it is a local government reform Bill, a local government involvement in health Bill and a public involvement in local government and health Bill. It tries to bring together public services in a new local framework, and I think that that is very important.
Similar aspirations are embodied in the Sustainable Communities Bill, which is promoted by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) and which is being debated in another Committee. That Bill should now be considered in light of the policy positions and discussions that have been considered in this Committee, and I look forward to further debates on it.
I echo the thanks that have been expressed to you, Mr. Benton. As ever, it has been a pleasure to work under your chairmanship. Four or five years ago, I was appointed as the Whip for the hon. Gentleman who is our Chairman, and I read advice from the various available publications on how to conduct the affairs of a Whip. That included measures that one could take to persuade and cajole—one is not allowed to say “bribe”, but you know what I mean. I looked down a list of my flock, at the head of which was your name, Sir, and I thought, “I don’t think I am in a position, as a new Member, to tell Mr. Benton what he should and shouldn’t be doing.” So I informed him what the Whip was and when, and asked him if he would kindly consider travelling to Westminster to take part in Divisions, and normally, Sir, you did—and I was very grateful.
The second name on the list was that of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and the third was that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). At that point I put in a transfer request.
You bring huge experience to the Chair, Mr. Benton, and a gentlemanly approach to our affairs, and your constituents are well served by you, as are those of Mr. Chope. I first met Mr. Chope in 1986, when he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Brooke, who was then the Minister with responsibility for universities. It was he who wisely informed me about the theory of cock-up and conspiracy—advice which I have carried with me ever since. Mr. Chope was the Under-Secretary with responsibility for local government for two years in the 1980s, and has a huge amount of experience in local government. I know that he was pleased to be asked to chair the Committee, and I pass my thanks to him through you, Mr. Benton.
I also thank the Clerks, who as ever are professional and patient, and the Hansard writers, who have had to put up with a variety of accents from across England—not least my own—which make life difficult. I hope hon. Members noticed that I did not pronounce “bathing costumes” in the way in which it would be pronounced in my part of the world. I am grateful also to the Doorkeepers. We have had a small number of Divisions, which reflects the care with which the Bill was drafted, but the Divisions that took place reflected some important points of honest difference between the parties.
I thank especially the officials—not only those from my Department, who have worked diligently on the Bill and on the White Paper for several years and who have put a huge amount of effort into them. I have seen proof of the old adage that preparation and planning make life easier. The Committee might wish to know that some of the officials worked for Mr. Chope when he was Under-Secretary of State. I can testify from my experience that the professional reputation of civil servants and officials is well founded.
 We have also been helped by officials from the Department of Health, whose money I am using to pay for the champagne at the reception that we will be having at a suitable point, and officials from the Cabinet Office. We have also been served by officials from the Electoral Commission who have given their advice.

Alison Seabeck: To pick up on the plaudits to officials, we Back-Benchers ought also to thank the many organisations that have contributed to the debate and supported us throughout the process. For me personally, it was the Local Government Information Unit and the Local Government Association, but other colleagues have received support from a range of bodies. I just wanted to put that on record.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My experience is that the amount of briefing, concern and lobbying on local government far outweighs that in other areas of public policy, for obvious reasons. What has struck me is the level of professionalism in the bodies making representations. As my hon. Friend says, they are to be thanked.
I also thank Committee members. This Committee stage has been an enlightening experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford rightly said that care had been taken to ensure that the Committee included Members of Parliament who know what they are talking about. When my hon. Friend the Whip suggested that approach, I was somewhat taken aback. I am one of only a few members of this Committee who have never been a councillor. I have tallied up the years of experience in local council represented on the Committee, and it is substantial. It makes Brian Lara’s scores look rather low. That expertise is across the range, for which I am grateful to hon. Members.
It has also been enlightening. We heard about the family of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. We congratulate him and look forward to the new arrival. He is a lawyer, which I do not hold against him. One of the few things to which I am looking forward in the event that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stands down is once again being able to take the mickey out of lawyers and public schoolboys. During the past 13 years, we have not been allowed to do so—says he, trying to remember whether the Chancellor has ever been a lawyer. No, he has not, so we are on safe ground. The point that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate made about reported crime has had a big impact on thinking in the Department, and I thank him for it. It shows that raising such points is worth while.
The hon. Member for Lichfield came to the aid of the mace of Lichfield. What he did not know was that I had received advice the previous day from no less a figure than the head of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers. If colleagues want to join a trade union, SOLACE is not a bad one to remember. I point out that the average tenure of the chief executive of a local authority has been less than that of a Minister for Local Government for 15 years. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing; I suspect that it is a bad thing.
The head of SOLACE asked me whether I had looked at the issue of maces, because when proposing to create unitary councils, one must protect the traditions and nuances of local councils, including parishes. He informed me that one of the biggest difficulties in the Banham proposals considered in the 1990s was that the Government of the day realised that unless they introduced late amendments to the Bill, they would be in danger of confiscating all the maces from the councils. I took his advice. When the hon. Member for Lichfield raised the issue of the mace, which he did in his usual friendly and jocular fashion, he was making a serious point. In making changes, one must bring people along and protect traditions where they do good, not harm. There is an important philosophy running through this radical Bill, which the exchange on maces led to.
The hon. Member for Poole has an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government at the end of proceedings tonight on the local government finance settlement in Poole. The hon. Gentleman’s proposition, as a true Conservative, is that because it is rich it should get more money. That has been the argument of the right for many centuries. The argument to the contrary that we Labour Members tend to put, is often put with more passion, but rarely with as much articulateness and diligence—

Angela Smith: Articulateness?

Phil Woolas: Articulation. I thank my hon. Friend. I should be grateful if she gave me a glass of water. The hon. Gentleman will be making his case on behalf of his constituency. It is a pleasure to work with him in Committee. He always gets to the big point and does not mess around with the trivial points, and the debates reflect that.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove cannot attend. He has apologised for missing this afternoon’s sitting. He and his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench have, on the whole, put their points fairly and have, I think, accepted the genuine intentions of the Bill, which is on the whole devolutionary. They have taken the opportunity, as Liberal Democrats often do, to read some press releases, which are normally about the single transferable vote. I refer to that in my notes as the single transferable speech, because I have heard it many times and it is always the same. Nevertheless, I suppose that they should be congratulated on their consistency. I thank them for the way in which they have approached the Committee.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is part of the 555 group. There are three members of that group on this Committee who were elected in 2005.

Alison Seabeck: Four.

Phil Woolas: I said in response to the hon. Gentleman’s maiden speech that he was a category A Member of Parliament. He has shown his diligence in this Committee, as well as his expert knowledge of local government. I thank him for that.
I particularly thank my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who, with his Opposition colleagues, has ensured that there has been sensible time for debate. The noble Lords will, on reading the proceedings in Hansard, be satisfied that scrutiny has been given in the right way and with due time, without the need for confrontation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he and his colleagues have crafted that and I thank all the hon. Members involved.
I also thank my hon. Friends, who have brought to the Committee knowledge, not just of local government, but their many years of experience in their constituencies and of the voluntary sector. I thank them for that. I will be scrutinising proposals in Bedford with particular vigilance, given the views that have been expressed. I look forward to that.

Neil Turner: Before the Minister ends his thanks, I want to point out that the unique thing about this Committee is that we were able to question people prior to our proceedings. It is right to put on the record our thanks to the officials who facilitated that unique process, which was useful. That is a good innovation that will benefit the scrutiny process in the House.

Phil Woolas: In echoing that, all Committee members will have noticed that, when changes are introduced in parliamentary proceedings, there are those who wish to see rapid, radical change and those who resist it. However, life has a way of bedding in and my belief is that, in future, it will be taken as read that it is common sense to undertake such evidence sessions. In reality, the procedure saved Committee members time, because we would have been lobbied in any event. I remember that we were lobbied in our advice surgeries and around our constituencies about the minimum wage legislation, so I echo those remarks.
 I particularly thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham who, like the Whip, is silenced by the process that we undertake in Committee deliberations. Not only has she been of enormous help to me and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but she helped to influence the policy, the debate and the amendments. We would not have had so many champagne moments without her. I have always been proud to be a champagne socialist. I have never seen the point of socialism unless it involves the proposition, “If they can have it, why can’t we?” I think that the term was originally intended as an insult to members of the Labour party, but I never saw it as such myself. However, in light of my confession, I should like to spend some more of the Department of Health’s money on champagne for Committee members at a suitable point. The French vintner Joseph D’Argent said,
“No Government could survive without champagne.”
How right he was.
The Bill is very important in relation to the reconfiguration of public finances and the relationship not only between central and local government but between central Government and government services provided locally. Although the framework that we are adopting in the Bill has not, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said, been the subject of headlines, the Bill will have good repercussions far beyond this Committee in the years to come. I know that it has been welcomed by the Local Government Association and others.
I thank you, Mr. Benton, and the rest of the Committee, and I look forward to working with members of the Committee in implementing the legislation in future.

Joe Benton: Before I put the remainder of the proceedings to the Committee, let me respond on behalf of Mr. Chope and myself by saying what a great pleasure it has been to have the privilege of chairing this Committee. I thank the Ministers, Opposition spokespeople and all members of the Committee for the courtesy and co-operation that they have extended to Mr. Chope and myself throughout our proceedings.
I value, as always, the assistance provided by the learned Clerks, the Official Reporters and everybody who has contributed to the smooth running of this Committee. Just one quick comment of my own on the uniqueness of the Committee, I think that our experience with the witness contributions at the beginning of the proceedings proved very valuable. It was most interesting. I do not know where things will go to from here, but I found it very valuable and informative. Thank you all very much indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at eleven minutes to Four o’clock.